Quitting smoking isn’t so simple

Letter-writer Leroy M. Martinez seems to think that one size fits all when it comes to smoking and death by cancer as the result.

He said that no smoker should get any money for getting lung cancer. The way I read the story, the daughter of a smoker received a huge compensation for the death of her father. Does she smoke?

Martinez also states that people have known for years that smoking will give you cancer and says he doesn’t care if it is addicting. Just exactly when did people know this (and I don’t mean a little hidden medical article somewhere few people could see it)? I’m not proud of it, but I’ve smoked for more than 50 years and, when I began, it was entirely acceptable, smokes were cheap, and doctors didn’t mention it during visits. Smoking is addictive.

There are many efforts out to assist people to quit smoking, but I have found that none of them work for me. It takes a strong-willed person to quit permanently, and all the psychological approaches and available patches, gums, pills, etc., are not yet the complete answer. Medicine and science have a long way to go to solve this problem for everyone.

Roy Cantrell, Aurora

This letter was published online only. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

This is a difficult one. My mother died of alcoholism related liver failure. The medical care she received was excellent, but it was to ease her pain and suffering, not to cure. The doctor said they simply would not do a liver transplant on an alcoholic. I’ve missed my mother every day for 23 years, but she simply was not able to quit drinking and it killed her.

I understand why additional medical treatments were not made available. I think when dealing with the results of any addiction, we should of course provide relief from pain, but I am not sure it makes sense to provide corrective or replacement surgery if the addictive behavior has not changed (drinking, smoking, drugs).

jamie

This is a difficult one. My mother died of alcoholism related liver failure. The medical care she received was excellent, but it was to ease her pain and suffering, not to cure. The doctor said they simply would not do a liver transplant on an alcoholic. I’ve missed my mother every day for 23 years, but she simply was not able to quit drinking and it killed her.

I understand why additional medical treatments were not made available. I think when dealing with the results of any addiction, we should of course provide relief from pain, but I am not sure it makes sense to provide corrective or replacement surgery if the addictive behavior has not changed (drinking, smoking, drugs).

Garry

Uh, there’s a BLATANT WARNING on the side of EVERY pack! “When di d people know this?” You have got o be kidding! You smoked for fifty years, and never seen the warning on the packs. I have never smoked yet somehow found a way to pay attention to every day news, people, life in general and figured out IT CAUSES CANCER! As far as quitting: You have to WANT to quit. If you are too weak minded, then obviously the ciggarrettes aren’t the problem.

Garry

Uh, there’s a BLATANT WARNING on the side of EVERY pack! “When di d people know this?” You have got o be kidding! You smoked for fifty years, and never seen the warning on the packs. I have never smoked yet somehow found a way to pay attention to every day news, people, life in general and figured out IT CAUSES CANCER! As far as quitting: You have to WANT to quit. If you are too weak minded, then obviously the ciggarrettes aren’t the problem.

toohip

I can sympathize with what Roy Cantrell suggests – no I’m not a smoker, I think it’s revolting and agree with the anti-smokers. But the addition is a genetic thing. I’m 61, oth my parents smoked. When my dad had his first heart attack, he was told to quit, and he simply stopped. Died 25 years later of another heart attack, smoking didn’t help, but quitting probably did. Back then there were no devices or patches. My mom as the heavy smoker. At age 60+ she was told she had emphasema, and to quit. Then she got cancer, still tried to quit. She tried ever trick in the book (there weren’t many in the 60’s), and fought it to the day she died of cancer – from smoking. So for some addition is tough to break. I’m sure Roy is in this category.

But what I don’t sympathize is the frequent argument by smokers that they weren’t aware it could cause medical problems and death. Duh! This was stated, what, 40 years ago, when did they put warning labels on packs? I can sympathize with the anti-smoking group who don’t want to provide care and tax funds for smokers who refuse or can’t quit. It’s one thing to get addicted and have a hard time shaking the addiction – but it’s another to even start?

So why are we still seeing so many youthful smokers today, with all the warnings, proof, people dying around us of smoking related diseases? Because the gov’t won’t deal with the problem as a reponsible oversight for us. The tobacco companies are in the back pockets of politicians, mostly Republicans and they’ll keep smoking as a necessary evil as long as they can. Look who whines when they want to raise the cigarette tax. Some say it should be $5 a pack.

Cigarettes should be completely banned. They offer absolutely NO VALUE to a person, on first time or casual use. There is no high like alchohol. They don’t taste good. They only exist to serve those addicted to them. Not many people want to go out and try meth because it’s a social stigma, smoking is. Because we “allow” it. They removed the inside “smoking room” in our Fed building, but the smokers still go just out side the door 25 feet from the door, and smoke. Non-smokers have to walk through this haze to get to work. If second hand smoke also kills, why do we allow smoking in the public to begin with? I’m sitting at a local restaurant, and they allow smoking on the patio. The smell is ruining my meal, but I can’t say anything, because these smokers, like Roy, are angry types, and “don’t get it’ that others are offended not by seeing them smoke or care if they kill themselves – just don’t kill or harm us. Keep your smoking in your home, car and yard. Just don’t expect me to buy your house or car after you stunk it up. Smoker’s rights have got to end.

toohip

I can sympathize with what Roy Cantrell suggests – no I’m not a smoker, I think it’s revolting and agree with the anti-smokers. But the addition is a genetic thing. I’m 61, oth my parents smoked. When my dad had his first heart attack, he was told to quit, and he simply stopped. Died 25 years later of another heart attack, smoking didn’t help, but quitting probably did. Back then there were no devices or patches. My mom as the heavy smoker. At age 60+ she was told she had emphasema, and to quit. Then she got cancer, still tried to quit. She tried ever trick in the book (there weren’t many in the 60’s), and fought it to the day she died of cancer – from smoking. So for some addition is tough to break. I’m sure Roy is in this category.

But what I don’t sympathize is the frequent argument by smokers that they weren’t aware it could cause medical problems and death. Duh! This was stated, what, 40 years ago, when did they put warning labels on packs? I can sympathize with the anti-smoking group who don’t want to provide care and tax funds for smokers who refuse or can’t quit. It’s one thing to get addicted and have a hard time shaking the addiction – but it’s another to even start?

So why are we still seeing so many youthful smokers today, with all the warnings, proof, people dying around us of smoking related diseases? Because the gov’t won’t deal with the problem as a reponsible oversight for us. The tobacco companies are in the back pockets of politicians, mostly Republicans and they’ll keep smoking as a necessary evil as long as they can. Look who whines when they want to raise the cigarette tax. Some say it should be $5 a pack.

Cigarettes should be completely banned. They offer absolutely NO VALUE to a person, on first time or casual use. There is no high like alchohol. They don’t taste good. They only exist to serve those addicted to them. Not many people want to go out and try meth because it’s a social stigma, smoking is. Because we “allow” it. They removed the inside “smoking room” in our Fed building, but the smokers still go just out side the door 25 feet from the door, and smoke. Non-smokers have to walk through this haze to get to work. If second hand smoke also kills, why do we allow smoking in the public to begin with? I’m sitting at a local restaurant, and they allow smoking on the patio. The smell is ruining my meal, but I can’t say anything, because these smokers, like Roy, are angry types, and “don’t get it’ that others are offended not by seeing them smoke or care if they kill themselves – just don’t kill or harm us. Keep your smoking in your home, car and yard. Just don’t expect me to buy your house or car after you stunk it up. Smoker’s rights have got to end.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...